Poverty and Immorality go Hand in Hand

A man pays no price for impregnating a woman and running away. The woman pays a scant cost, and government forces the rest of us help her shoulder the burden.

There used to be a social bargain, an old man once explained to me. Women had the good stuff, and men had the strong backs to bring home the bacon. Man and woman entered into marriage and exchanged these gifts to make a family, a fundamental building block of the community.

A particularly odious scoundrel was a man who got a woman pregnant and took off. He broke the social agreement. She gave him something, but he failed to uphold his end of the bargain by forsaking all others and assuming his responsibility as head of the family. Worse, he condemned his mate and the child to a life on the margins. Today, that bargain is broken. Women give it up for free and men can be perpetual little boys.

Family has now been redefined so that it means nothing whatsoever, contributes nothing to society, and cannot even sustain itself.

I read another heart sob story about a woman and her children in a homeless shelter.

Imagine that! They just decided to go their separate ways! …And stick the taxpayers with the bill by throwing themselves upon the mercy of Catholic Charities and various taxpayer-funded federal, state and local agencies.

Her first mistake was getting knocked up, twice, by a man she was not married to. What has turned so many of our women into brainless tramp-stamped candy stores? Her second mistake was letting the little boy pretending to be a man walk away without a care in the world.

The article goes on to explain how single moms saddled with a litter of illegitimate kids and no job skills can't afford an apartment. No kidding.

Your Right to Immorality ends at My Pocketbook

Am I being moralistic? Hell yes! I am a libertarian, but your business becomes my business when government shakes me down because you're fertile, averse to marriage, and like to get jiggy.

Forty percent of births in America are to unwed parents. Broken down by ethnic group, the figures are 30 percent among whites, 50 percent for Hispanics and 70 percent for blacks.

Marriage patterns are creating a caste system in a country that had traditionally enjoyed relative equality. Among the well-educated, marriage rates have remained very stable over the past several decades.

College graduates are thus (mostly) rearing their children in orderly, supportive environments in which kids are taught to study hard, delay gratification and plan for the future. But 54 percent of the children of high school dropouts are illegitimate. Their parents' lives are marked by financial stress, conflict and turmoil. (Mona Charen – Wrong Marriage Debate)

The sad fact is that we have a growing self-selecting underclass with no morals. Marriage means nothing, kids are accidents that get in the way of a good time. And those kids grow up stupid because the nuts don't fall far from the tree.

Educated people and people in the skilled labor force get married, stay married, and see that their progeny do the same. They avoid drugs, sexual license and financial irresponsibility, and teach their kids to do so as well. They may not be driven by Jewish or Christian faith, but they have nonetheless adopted the traditional values of these great religions and are successful as a result. This creates a virtuous cycle, while our new underclass is trapped in a downward spiral.

Regardless of where they come from, morals do matter

Since the 60’s, radical elements in this country began trashing “traditional morality” and deploring the “Christian theocracy,” screaming that we should tear it all down man! Well, you stinking, immoral hippies, you've succeeded. You’ve torn it all down man! But for all your talk of morality without God, you failed to replace the old morality with something new.

SF: Your opening remarks about the social bargain describes a male-dominated workforce. How much effect has feminism had on the social contract? It is no longer unusual for a wife to earn more than her husband.I also recognise that often in the "good ol' days" women would be trapped in abusive marriages because the alternative was homelessness. I tend to think that the option to escape from a man who beats you is a positive development.

I came across this article in a web browser because I was hoping for some infinate responses/ reasoning for some issues. It really annoys me that the mentality some people take of white people are indebited to them for things that there ancestors were put through without it being something directly happening to them now and knowing nothing of my lineage wonder how they can single me out. I am respectful of all people, the world and cultures of vast variety fascinate me. I have lived in multicultural ghettos/projects and as i watch some people tear up things I wonder how can they complain about where they live because there making it tht way for themselves. It seems like respect and pride for the few things you have are not taught which leaves me to wonder why you make such an issue about situations which are in your control. I also look at the issues that the black communities home country is facing now and wonder how can you not appreciate your history more. There suffering ended yours, if you were in Africa all you would have to look forward to is murder, rape, and famin. No food or clean water, your babies stolen from you and trained to kill your people. Surely you can find some relief in your ancestors suffering in America to realize this is a fate your family has escaped now in present day times. I never suggest that what happened to your ancestors was right, but the hatred that comes from this piece of history is what gets to me. If you want to lead the world into better opportunity for your people you need to come across as someone dignified who doesn’t teach hate in order to overcome, but love and forgiveness.

It's not so much morality as it is cause and effect. Women with no education or job skills have 3 children out of wedlock and can't support them on her own. Daddy skips town, mommy's screwed.

On the other hand, a woman with no education or job skills gets married to a guy, has three kids in wedlock, and Daddy skips town . . . mommy's still screwed despite the fact that they were "moral" to begin with.

Morality does not necessarily dictate the outcome of your situation. If it was moral to have illegitimate children, and daddy skipped town, that family would still be in the same boat. Logic and circumstances dictate the outcome of a situation, not the inherent morality of the actions taken.

Jez: I'm not calling for a return to Father Knows Best (a 50's sitcom with the stay at home mom, and father who comes home from work to his wife and kids bringing him his pipe and slippers). I am pointing out that those who practice traditional morality enjoy success at a much higher rate than those who do not.

You display a common liberal trait of bringing up a statistical asterisk. Yes, domestic violence is real, but it only explains a small percentage, and more often than not, it is not the cause of people falling to underclass status, but rather a result.

The same social dysfunction I discuss in this article feeds into young women tragically, willingly entering into and staying in abusive relationships because that is what they see around them.

You also employ a false dichotomy: Either traditional marriage where women get the crap beat out of them or sexual libertinism.

Indeed, abuse is now more likely to occur outside a marriage than within one.

The woman in the story was not a victim of abuse.

The man and woman in the story simply walked away after the sex wasn't fun anymore.

My point is that we abandon traditional morality at our peril. G.K. Chesterton said something about not tearing down a wall unless you know why it was put up in the first place.

A lack of morals has not just impacted individuals, but our entire nation.

What you do with your life is your business, until government puts a gun to my head and forces me to pay for your mistakes.

"You display a common liberal trait of bringing up a statistical asterisk."That's not what I'm doing -- you've filled in (wrongly) a lot of gaps here. I certainly didn't offer that ludicrous false dichotomy. I'm just wondering how much the social contract would have changed even if everybody still chose to aspire to Victorian sexual norms, due to the recently improved economic prospects for single women.

Jez: This isn't even so much about sex, but about personal responsibility and what our culture holds up as virtuous and what it despises.

"A good family man" used to be a compliment and something young men strove to be.

More importantly, our government rewards irresponsible behavior. People are cranking out kids and not taking care of them. Not getting married, or simply walking away, and leaving the rest of us (teachers, neighbors, charitable givers and taxpayers) to pick up the pieces.

I'm not playing games with words, I'm just saying that morality does not always = success, and immorality does not always = unsuccessfulness.

An intelligent, capable woman with marketable skills and who is able to support herself will likely not be sent to the poor house just because she's got a bastard kid.

Technically, it was immoral for my ex-wife and I to get divorced, and according to the broken house-hold logic we should both be suffering for our moral intransigence. Both of us are doing just fine, and our kids are great: healthy, intelligent, and well-adjusted.

It rains on the just and unjust alike, and success does not always have to do with how moral a person is.

An excellent post, Silver. The correlation between the lack of moral standardsor family values or ethics or whatever people want to call it and the sad state of our society to day is undeniable. There was a time when children from every economic class were taught a simple code of life : your word is your bond and you are responsible for your actions.

Over 150 years ago, the Fabian socialist new that the best way to bring down America, the bastion of evil capitalism, was to break down the morality that was so prevelent in American society. They have achieved their goal.

Anyone who says a child of divorce is "just fine" is lying. Period.Further, single and working mothers are the bane of a civilized society. Look around you! Statistically, children of single and working mothers have a higher rate of violent crime, illegitimate births and suicide. How difficult is it to see the higher rate of bullying as children are marginalized by their own parents? Nothing good comes from this lack of responsibility.The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world.

Jack. I never used "always." The correlation is there, and it is strong. Of course there are exceptions.

Also, see my earlier comments about morality. It's not just irresponsible sex, it's about taking responsibility for your actions, owning them and not using government to make other pay for your mistakes.

See conservativesonfire and Divine's comments. They both say it very well.

@Jack: Technically, it was immoral for my ex-wife and I to get divorced, and according to the broken house-hold logic we should both be suffering for our moral intransigence. Both of us are doing just fine, and our kids are great: healthy, intelligent, and well-adjusted.

I assume you are both employed and taking an active role in raising your children, so you are not included in the group I am criticizing.

Obviously, some people just cannot hold it together, but you and your ex did not throw it all on the taxpayers. Sounds like you are being responsible and teaching your kids to be as well.

So you're saying my kids are screwed up? Generally I try to be civil in these type of discussions, but your claim is indicative of blatent ignorance, and it only demonstrates your lack of ability to see beyond your own narrow perception of reality.

Yes, I'm divorced, and my children are just fine. They are well adjusted, intelligent, empathetic kiddoes, and your assertion that they're not fine is both stupid and uninformed.

I'm a successful person. I served with distinction in the US Navy. I graduated from college summa cum laude, I've got a job that pays the bills enough for me to send both of my children to Catholic school, and hopefully in about 2 years I'll have my teaching license.

That should fly into the face of your ridiculous conclusions, because my parents were also divorced. I grew up just fine, and life was good for me.

Out of deference for Silver, I won't insult you in the manner that I would very much like to do so, so for now saying that you're completely wrong and ignorant will have to suffice.

The people you're talking about are not suffering because they're immoral: they're suffering because they're idiots. They're uneducated, unskilled, and generally unfit to be parents. It's not immoral to be a moron, it's just incredibly unwise.

Linking poverty to immorality is much akin to Carnegie's Gospel of Wealth, and I don't think anyone holds that line of thought to be true anymore.

Ducky, of the 50 million people on welfare there are approximately 40% black, 40% white and the remainder "other".There are 37 million black folks in this country, if 20 million are on some form of welfare then 60% of the black population is on the dole! Apparently your War on Poverty has failed! Well, unless you want black children to suffer in a hopeless environment? Crime demographics match welfare demographics in every city in every state. Irresponsibilty begets irresponsibility. It is quite obvious that the Welfare State is mostly to blame for this dearth of responsibility. What do you propose to do about it?

@Jack: The people you're talking about are not suffering because they're immoral: they're suffering because they're idiots.

If you go read Mona Charen's article, she explains that there is a high correlation between moral behavior (regardless of whether the motivation is religious or not) and family outcomes. Obviously there are exceptions.

I watched one of my favorite films recently "Since You Went Away", 1943......... I had never realized before that it opens with the following printed on the screen.."This is the story of the unconquerable fortress..the American home."

How far we've digressed...250 years of honoring God and raising children with consciences and integrity. The hippie/left idiocy did replace the old morality with something new, however, Silverfiddle, nihilism, atheism, ...suddenly, after things worked so well and we were such a great society, it was "who's to say what's good and bad?"

Looking at the difference between those who get in the swim and actually experience life, and those who sit on the sidelines [often in the secluded ivory towers of academe or the latter day palaces and board rooms of the super-rich] merely theorizing about how others ought to deal with the experience they are enduring never ceases to appall, amuse and amaze me.

The hard reality at the heart of this issue is what should be done to improve the quality of life and future prospects the innocent children from these pointless, careless, loveless unions are apt to experience?

Most probably because of feminism -- a leftist initiative, which is not much about liberating women at all but much more about using "women's issues" as a means of getting leftist hands on the twin levers of Power & Control -- the idea that once a woman becomes pregnant -- no matter how or by whom -- her duty is not to herself and her vain, childish hopes for "self-actualization," but to the new life growing in her womb.

Marxism, Socialism, Collectivism, Progressivism, Liberalism, Statism, Interventionism -- whatever you want to all it -- has fostered the corrosive, degenerative idea that only one's own material well-being and comfort are of any importance, and that life is hardly sacred -- especially when it interferes with "self-actualization."

Instant -- and eternal -- gratification achieved through the labor and at the expense of others has somehow become seen as a desirable, respectable -- even a worthy -- goal.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

These theoretical forces -- dreamt up by "intellectuals," who were for the most part, I'll bet, miserable people leading wretched, unfulfilled, anger-driven personal lives -- are inimical to the best interests of the individual while purporting to be the direct opposite.

Marxian dialectics favor using the individual merely as a cog in the machinery of an omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent State that supposedly will supply everyone's needs -- but only s IT sees fit.

At any rate, leftists by plotting ruthlessly and relentlessly to undermine Christianity, traditional concepts of morality, respect for one's elders, pride in white identity, middle-class prosperity, reverence for the tremendous accomplishments of White Christian Civilization, and supplanting these with adoration of greed, envy, spite, malice, licentiousness, worship of militant frivolity, the legitimization of violence and insurrection as a means of achieving "Social Justice," and of course, "Sex, Drugs and Rock 'n Roll," have really screwed up Western Civilization to a fare-thee-well.

As Rush has said so often, "The problem with this society is that too many are using the Social Safety Net s a HAMMOCK."

Well, yes, but it goes deeper than that. The Poor have been weakened and demoralized by a Social System that offers them a miserable subsistence for free in exchange for their freedom to advance on their own merits.

One trapped in the undertow of Welfare Statism very few can summon up the strength necessary to avoid drowning in the whirlpool this evil mentality has created.

In the dreary confines of a Socialist State everyone remains a child forever and everyone plays the role of a victim. Those who would be our Masters WANT it hat way. It's all been very craftily planned.

This is the Rough Beast Slouching on Its Way to Bethlehem that caused so much consternation in the heart of William Butler Yeats.

Basically, from my perspective, the progressive movement has brought upon individuals the desire to have stuff. Many people think differently about what rights are now, compared to when I was a kid. My parents raised me to think that you have the right to try, but not the right to have. Just because you want or need something does not mean you EVER have the right to force someone for it. If it's given to you because you ask, fine. If you earn it, even better. But if you take it without a voluntary agreement between you and the individual providing it, well, you just don't.

Now though, so many feel they have the right to something earned by another, simply because they exist. Why wouldn't it stand to reason they'd look for someone else to provide everything for them, when they've been taught for so long that they deserve it just because they wake up in the morning?

Personally, I am very happy to help someone that legitimately needs a helping hand and plans to use that help to help get out of the problem. What disgusts me are the people that feel they deserve something of mine by force. And I'm not talking common thieves here - I'm allowed to handle those if I feel threatened with grave bodily harm. I'm talking about the ones who demand of their government that they force taxpayers to provide something for them; healthcare, housing, education, etc.

Anyway, great post as always, sir. I'd love it if there were more people like you here near the San Francisco of Wisconsin (good 'ol Madison).

Consider for a moment some of our biggest, most-loved current-day heroes: Morally-bankrupt, ethically-challenged, law-breaking, reprobates. And yet we see fit to willfully - nay, gladly - hand these effing lowlifes 6-figure salaries because they can skillfully play a game.

Nurses, soldiers, teachers, small business owners (among many others) - these people do a multitude of humble heroics on a daily basis yet receive no glory and squeak by on meager salaries.

Society accepts and rewards irresponsible behavior. Hell, we idolize thuggy rap bastards who manage to sneak cell phones into jail. We politely turn a blind eye and allow convicted criminals to lounge around in prisons for decades. As a nation, we've eroded our moral fiber past the point of reason. So why should we be surprised when the next generation responds in kind?

A lot of the problem lies with the absence of social stigma. Society enables this behavior because there are no immediate disadvantages. If young people saw bad things happen to their peers, they might think twice before repeating their mistakes. At least it was that way when I was growing up. Engage in bad behavior and just maybe your life for the next few years or decades drastically changed and not for the better.

Basically it boils down to no negative consequences. Instead they're just victims. Awwwww, poor darlings, we need to help them so they can keep repeating bad decisions.

I'm all for giving people the free choice of screwing up. Just don't come to me with your panhandling mitts out. Go fund your own stupidity. That's just my opinion, I could be wrong.

Give kids the freedom and responsibility to make choices when the cost of failure is still small. Experience conveys volumes more than words.

Did it break my heart to make my 5 yr old pay me some of his piggy bank savings to help replace something he broke on accident? Yup. Did I feel like a heel forcing him to fork over that money? Yes, I certainly did. But that single lesson was probably more meaningful than 6 months of nagging.

I'm mostly powerless to do anything about the amoral dregs walking around now, but I think - I sincerely hope - that thru teaching children to consider consequences before they act, we can do some course correction for the next generation. I'm sure that ain't a perfect recipe, but maybe it's a step in the right direction.

Meanwhile back in capitalist free trade heaven we have the story of factories in Jordan, our noble trading partner absolutely brutalizing "guest" workers making clothes for Wal-mart and the rest so that AOW can enjoy those everyday low prices. Women are recruited and removed from their families and the their passports are confiscated. Same old, same old ... Free trade (LMFAO).

Happens with those happy polite Mexicans the lady who lunches is just so delighted with in the service sector. Trying to make something to send back to their family.

And the same economic pressures are at work on American families. This time with foreclosures and unemployment. But all you public sector workers like silverfiddle and flinflan working in an industry that steals more than we can imagine are going to go on about their morals? Please.

"Educated people and people in the skilled labor force get married, stay married, and see that their progeny do the same. They avoid drugs, sexual license and financial irresponsibility, and teach their kids to do so as well."

LOL!!! That's most naive thing you've ever written.

No, Silver, they misbhave just like evryone else - they just have the funds to get away with it.

The welafre state did not create any of this. Americans have always been like this. It's our heritage.

Educated people and people in the skilled labor force get married, stay married, and see that their progeny do the same. They avoid drugs, sexual license and financial irresponsibility, and teach their kids to do so as well.

--------------Have to side with Jersey in giving this a big LMFAO.

Did you check out today's story on the huge NEW York ring that was busted for providing hookers and dope to hedge fund managers?

I've spent a good part of my life among the wealthy, and I learned this: Wealth is in and of itself immorality. Anyone who's read the Bible knows that, and it's obviously true, heck, I'm not even religious and I know that for a fact!

There you go again hurling irrational broadsides like The Voice of Authority with no evidence to back you up, Jersey.

You can't be serious. Wealth is like anything else you can think of. Only what one CHOOSES to DO with it determines whether it is good or evil.

Take airplanes for instance. Most of the time thy are used as a speedy, highly effective means of transport over long distances. Sometimes, however, they are used to spray bullets and drop bombs -- and latterly three of them were hijacked and used as Weapons of Mass Destruction by Islamaniacs to topple the World Trade Center in New York and attempt to destroy The Pentagon and probably the Capitol building -- or the White House -- in Washington, DC.

Because airplanes have been put to destructive uses at times, does that mean we should stop flying altogether?

The same is true of cars. They often kill, cripple or maim when accidents occur, but would any sensible person suggest the automobile should be banned so that everyone could return to the "safer" practices of walking and horseback riding as their main means of transportation?

Public Sector? Sorry, I work for an engineering services company. Nice try though.

Way to stay focused on your red herrings though:

"Educated people and people in the skilled labor force get married, stay married, and see that their progeny do the same. They avoid drugs, sexual license and financial irresponsibility, and teach their kids to do so as well."

The majority of successful people are financially irresponsible...damn that one's got five syllables...

Uh, spend money like its burning a hole in their pocket? Y/N

Go on... make your rational argument that drugs, sexual license, and financial irresponsibility are the pathway to success.

You gents like to pick up on the anomalies and use them as red herrings where you toss them out there like they were the center of the bell curve. And no, Lindsey Lohan is not your average successful person.

The fact is, SF's statement is true about the majority of successful people.

Honestly I should have called you Diana Moon Glampers, but I wanted to make it easy for you to find.

Let me relate to you a true story what is wrong with America in regards to personal responsibility.

I live in a rural area, where houses are few and far between. This all took place a few years ago.

On my way home every day I passed an ancient single wide mobile home distinguished only by the giant flat-screen TV visible through the plate glass picture window. I thought the irony of it funny at the time.

I have a woodburning stove and fireplaces, and in shopping around for someone who would give me a good deal on an honest cord of wood. I wound up calling a guy, who turned out to be a handyman, and sold firewood. Yes, it was the guy in the old single-wide with the 60" Plasma TV.

Over time, I bought more wood from him, hired him to cut down dead trees on my property, and do odd jobs. One day while he was cutting trees I found him passed out on the ground. He was a diabetic and would constantly forget to take his insulin. He related the story that he could get an insulin pump that monitored his blood sugar, but couldn't afford it and didn't have insurance.

One thing he was proud of was his giant flat screen TV that he had saved up for and bought. What you may now realize, which he did not seem to, was that at that time, the price of the TV would have covered the insulin pump.

Regrettably the story doesn't end there. One day my wife found him passed out on the side of the road and called 911. At the scene, the sheriff cited him for driving without a license, as it had already been taken away by the state due to his medical condition and previous incidents. The sheriff related to my wife that this happened all the time and he wished he could legally do something about it.

Eventually he passed out at the wheel of his car, crossed the center line, struck a young college girl almost killing her, and crippling himself.

Why? Gosh Darn, He had a right to drive.

Is this illustrative of all people without medical insurance or adequate insurance? No... but it sure does illustrate the problem with irresponsibility in America today.

Honestly, he wasn't completely without insurance, he was in a state low income health insurance program which paid for his insulin, needles, and test strips.

Which would you rather have? A big screen TV or an insulin pump?

One sad story among millions I'm sure... but I have know people with 500,000 dollar homes, boat, toy hauler, atvs... and no health insurance.

We don't have a problem with an insufficiency of government programs to help people, we have a problem with a general lack of personal responsibility.

Silverfiddle, you can blame a lot of this on the Women's Lib Movement. To day the majority of women have all the morals of an alley cat in heat, just bed hoping from one guy to another.

They don't want a man around, claiming that men are only good for one thing. So if they get pregnant, they don't even want the guy to be involved in their child's life. All they want is the child support. I know a lot of men who have told me that if they aren't allowed to be a father to the child, then why should they support it.

"Since the 60’s, radical elements in this country began trashing “traditional morality” and deploring the “Christian theocracy,” screaming that we should tear it all down man! Well, you stinking, immoral hippies, you've succeeded. You’ve torn it all down man! But for all your talk of morality without God, you failed to replace the old morality with something new."

Reverend, get over yourself. The hippies are a minor footnote in history.

Now let's get back to Silverfiddle's thesis that poverty and immorality go hand in hand. Running an economy that transfers massive amounts of wealth from the working and middle class to the Wall Street casino owners is a recipe for rough times.

Well Ducky, it's impossible not to do business with government at all, given they're now about 1/5 of the economy, but the company I work for has a diverse client base, hell, we even do business with the great Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

We do industrial, energy, mining, transportation, aeronautical, even health care... and the one common thread is no matter what sector you go into, there's both private and government work available there too. That's the problem, government has insinuated itself into everthing, it's everywhere.

Is there such a thing as too much government?

At what point would it become too much?

When it touches every single facet of your life?

Back to SF's thesis, not all poor people are immoral nor are all immoral people poor.

You said "Running an economy that transfers massive amounts of wealth from the working and middle class to the Wall Street casino owners is a recipe for rough times."

I agree with you 100%...what do you think TARP was?

I think were we disagree is on whether or not government should be transferring at wealth at all?

I will agree that there are ingrained problems in society that need to be corrected, but what alternatives do you offer?

I would rather live in a society where through my own ingenuity and the sweat of my brow I can become successful, than one in which success is determined by the purity of political thought, what group I join, or what some petty bureaucrat or politician deems I need or deserve.

Could we balance income in society through taxes and government subsidies? Okay, then what? What incentive do I or anyone have to do more than the absolute bare minimum? Punch in, punch out...go drink a fifth of vodka. Ever been to eastern europe? Great lesson is marxism there.

Silverfiddle...why did you write this? "Z: I run a free speech site here. I prefer to let Ducky's blathering totems of ignorance stand as they are, as they provide comic relief for the rest of us"

I don't care what you do with Ducky. I had him for 3 years and finally got sick of the insults to my commenters so I've gone on moderation, but it was more about another commenter than DUcky.I was all about free speech, believe me, and would LOVE to have civil, informed leftwingers (wait, is that an oxymoron?) at my site. Sadly, it doesn't happen often enough.

I've still failed to make my point, not that it's amazingly important that you get it but I might as well try one more time.

Silverfiddle is saying "Morals are getting worse. It was better when people had the sense to get married and stick with it, now thanks to nihilism they don't bother."And that's one theory.Another theory is that in the 50s people got married and stayed in those marriages because the alternative was literal destitution.

Also, I think a lasting marriage is a symptom of success rather than a cause of it. I can easily imagine the correlation you mention between wealth and marriage arising because wealth makes marriage easier, rather than your idea that successful marriage makes wealth easier. (Actually in my opinion they each reinforce the other.)

That's all I'm saying. I think marriage is a good thing, and I admire couples who maintain their relationship their whole lives. I'm saying this because if I don't you'll tend to assume that I despise marriage and don't see any need for it.

I am coming late to this post, but let me say, well done. So many people do not make the connection to immorality and poverty and the rest of us are faced with carrying their water. As individual citizens and a country as a whole, we would do well to instill a bit more morality in ourselves and our children. Instead, most of us want to go on merrily, taking zero responsibility, because it is our right. Shame on us for that.

Duck,absolutely brutalizing "guest" workers making clothes for Wal-mart and the rest so that AOW can enjoy those everyday low prices

Talk about what you know when it comes to dropping my name.

1. I don't shop at Wal*Mart. My last (only?) visit there was the summer of 2001 -- when I bought two cat-scratching posts.

2. I rarely buy clothes. Not a consumer in that regard. In fact, the last time I went shopping for clothes was the summer of 2001. Oh, wait, I bought some shorts in the summer of 2007. Still wearing those shorts -- yesterday, in fact.

So, where do I get my clothes? My neighbor's "rag bag," the clothing ministry at the church, and whatever gifts I receive.

Never had liked shopping for clothes! But when I had to, I usually went to a very high-end store.

Mostly, I buy books and medical supplies and medical services. My last big purchase was a computer to replace the dead machine from 2004.

AOW: Ducky is full of nonsensical suppositions and stereotypical thinking. He's just scolded me for insisting I do not work in the private sector. He's knows more about my life that I do, I guess.

Z: I guess I didn't phrase it very well, but what I was trying to say was that even slobbering boors who insult others can comment here. I only delete comments that employ pointless vulgarity or statements so vile they are meant only to provoke or demean.

Simple childish insults and ignorant statements stand as a useful marker to understand the commenter better.

This article is another blatant attempt to get average Americans hating others and get them to vote for laws which further restrict their rights and cut their own entitlements. Keep believing the oligarchy, sheeple!

Persistent complaints about the style in which other blog contributors choose to express themselves, and blatant attempts to coerce them into modifying the manner in which they state their opinions -- even to the point of virtually forbidding certain modes of expession and points of view to be discussed at all -- creates an atmosphere of constraint that breeds frustration, resentment, hostility, rebellion -- and finally disorder.

The best way to deal with objectionable individuals -- especially those whose intentions are obviously designed to draw attention to themselves by persistently "flaming the board" -- is to take no notice of them at all.

Feeding trolls succeeds only in strengthening them. Ultimately it breeds more trolls.

A mental climate of persistent accusation, denunciation, and censure takes debate away from solid subject, enters into the realm of personal attack that quickly foments mutual antagonism. Sadly this phenomenon can turn a once-good forum into the moral equivalent of a perpetual barroom brawl. That could never be a good thing in my never humble opinion.

Playing favorites and the capricious application of multiple standards also begs for trouble.

Tolerance of even the most outrageous remarks, and letting them stand or fall on their own merits without prejudice, allows for a much healthier atmosphere that makes a forum where honest, lively debate can thrive -- something I think you guys have achieved here very well.

Thanks for giving us the opportunity to say what we believe related to an interesting series of provocative, pertinent, and informative articles.

"Silverfiddle is saying 'Morals are getting worse. It was better when people had the sense to get married and stick with it, now thanks to nihilism they don't bother.'

And that's one theory.

Another theory is that in the 50s people got married and stayed in those marriages because the alternative was literal destitution.

Your alternative to SilverFiddle's thesis is not a theory at all, it's a supposition -- mere conjecture.

There may be some truth in what you say, but it sounds as though you mean to imply that most marriages were maintained in those halcyon days strictly out of desperation.

Having lived quite happily in that era, I don't believe there is much truth in your assertion. People stayed together because they honestly believed they had a duty to honor a lifetime commitment. I don't think they expected marriage to be endless romance, orgasmic delight or an uninterrupted elevator ride to the penthouse.

When people were more grounded in the ethos ad precepts of Christianity, they were less inclined to be selfish, and more inclined to form enduring relationships fully intending to share the good and bad in equal measure.

"For better or for worse; for richer or poorer, in sickness and in health; to love and to cherish, till death do us part."

When life gets reduced to nothing but "It's All About Me," it becomes depressing -- even disgusting.

That's what nihilism does. It foments a dejected, discontented, humorless, captious, ever more demanding, ever less generous mentality that leads only to enervation and despair.

Apparently, we really are what we think and believe, so it well behooves us to take a positive attitude and to nourish whatever instincts we may have to love and give unstintingly to others to whatever extent we can. A better society starts with the individual and build from there.

Utopia cannot be imposed by any form of Authoritarianism. Our hope lies in getting in touch with God, who dwells within each of us, but too often lies dormant.

This blog post wasn't an attempt to inspire hatred. No, I'd say it's more of a plea for "average Americans" to take some personal responsibility, set a decent example, and make some attempt at being a worthwhile, contributing member of society.

SF: "I only delete comments that employ pointless vulgarity or statements so vile they are meant only to provoke or demean." And then you were lucky enough to have someone immediately post a graphic example; How's that for divine intervention? :-)I rest my case! Throw in some profanity, and that's why I'm happily on Moderation!

Even Marx stated that capitalism must come before socialism. If that's what you're getting at.

Although I don't think the Czar directly funded the Bolshevik Revolution. It was more a vacuum formed by World War I which in turn was partially caused by the failure of the gold standard which your buddy Herman Cain wants reinstated.

Lenin received copious amounts of cash on his way back to Russia by the Germans - and was allowed safe passage through Germany by the Bethmann banking family.

Tristin's question is germane to this discussion. If you take a look at the NGOs that have been dismantling American culture, you find many ties that bind - to a small number of elitists.

A country with strong morals, solid families, with checks and balances is very difficult to control.

A country that has been de-moralized is easy to control. That's why sex, abortion, and vodka were so easy to get in the Soviet Union. The elite there knew that people enslaved to their own desires could not have the backbone to become another White Russian Army - or counter-revolutionaries.

Don't waste our time here, Ducky, with your red herrings and liberal "apologetics". You are not even competent enough to create real dissention - CONINTELPRO would have rejected your application outright.

I don't know for sure who funded the Russian Revolution, but I have a sneaking suspicion it must have had something to do with a much-too-powerful family named ROTHSCHILD.

It MAY even have come too from another illustrious family called ROCKFELLER and others of that ilk -- at least in part.

Those International elitists, who know no loyalty to this or any other country and hope someday to pull all our strings and make us dance to their jiggy jerky little tunes, are doubtless behind much-if-not-all the Great Mischief that has dominated the modern world since 1900.

I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if the then-newly-created Federal Reserve wasn't a supporter of the Bolsheviks, and also instrumental in getting us involved in WWI. Later, I imagine they secretly abetted the Nazis. I am morally certain The Fed engineered the onslaught of The Great Depression.

The Movers and Shakers doubtless play all ends against the middle in ways that work to their advantage and advance their long-term agenda to achieve World Domination through the establishment and relentless promotion of One World Government (socialist, of course) by any means fair or foul.

These elitists regard us all as nothing more than pawns in their game plan to become Masters of the Universe. They will fail, of course, because no one can get away with playing God for very long, except the Lord, Himself, but meanwhile most of us will have to suffer under the yoke of tyranny and deprivation while things work themselves out in God's own good time, which may, Alas! be many centuries.

Ducky, you are special kind of special.1. I don't like Herman Cain2. He is not for the gold standard, he is one of your Fed buddies, and a complete phony.3. Lenin and his boys were funded by Western capital most notably wall street and European central banks. The same can be said of Mao, Hitler and every other major socialist.

They used Marxist idiots to create massive war and redistribute the wealth from the common man to the rich and powerful. As they implemented socialism in the West we saw the gap between rich and poor continue become a vast divide.

FT: I don't see what makes SF's theory less conjectural than mine. Let's not waste time on what qualifies as a theory, that's highly sensitive to the context. Maybe we should call them "hypotheses" but that's harder to spell.

I do not mean to imply that marriages were maintained strictly out of desperation, but perhaps you can remember how impractical it seemed for a girl to choose not to marry. I'm sure real love happened prior to 1963, and I know that there existed happy marriages; but you'd be mad to claim that no bad marriages existed and persisted back then, where nowadays they'd be far more likely to separate.

"People stayed together because they honestly believed they had a duty to honor a lifetime commitment."

This is entirely consistent with my theory. Yes, they thought they had that duty, and the prospect of destitution would surely have been one of the things that could inspire that belief.

"I don't think they expected marriage to be endless romance, orgasmic delight or an uninterrupted elevator ride to the penthouse."

I'd be surprised if there weren't some idiots who thought that back then, as there are some now.

Anyway, I'm not claiming that this potential spiral isn't a problem, I just naturally resist the idea that societal changes are due to moral decline -- I think that gives far too much credit to our immediate ancestors, and you can find quotes from the elders of pretty much any historical period about how terrible the youngsters' standards and behaviour are.The families of the '50s worked within the restrictions of the time. When it's economically less viable to run two households, the rate of divorce drops: I believe recent divorce statistics illustrate this.

If it isn't moral decline, but economic improvement that is causing this problem, does that affect the cure? Would it be ethical to make people worse off financially if it would improve the success rate of marriage?

Glad you answered. You make good points and ask sensible questions. I can only say that having been alive, well and aware back in the late forties and early fifties (I'm pretty old!) the general tone and tenor of American life was much friendlier, more optimistic, more fun-loving, more easygoing, and far less anxious a fraught with anger and division then than it has been in latter years.

We had a tremendous mount of confidence and a fervent belief in Progress in the immediate post-war years. Sadly, it all dried up. the mood changed, and we became dour, dreary, degenerate and dysfunctional in the early Sick-sties.

I am, of course, a traditionalist, a bit of a romantic, and I was young a the time, and things may have looked better than they were. I can't be sure.

We've always had problems, and we always will no matter what we do. It does seem that every new development that promises a better or easier life brings with it a whole new set of problems as difficult or more so to solve than the ones dealt with before.

I've come to believe that change may be inevitable, but progress is largely an illusion.

Our Pennsylvania Dutch are supposed to have said, "The farther ahead I go, the behinder I get."

Humorous to our ears, of course, but it seems to state the problem very succinctly bad syntax and all.

"I was young a the time, and things may have looked better than they were. I can't be sure."

You're not the only person to have noticed these things. Consider this, from ancient Greece:

"The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise. Children are now tyrants, not the servants of their households. They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties at the table, cross their legs, and tyrannize their teachers."

It is easier to believe that we get grumpy as we age, than to trust all of these reports and believe that humanity has been constantly descending ever lower for millennia.Further evidence notwithstanding, imo it's sensible to ascribe theories of moral decay to this effect.

Silverfiddle - I'm on welfare. If I could afford an attorney, I'd sue for defamation of character. I pay scant costs?? I haven't had a new pair of shoes in 4 years. They have broken laces and holes in the soles because I walk everywhere due to the fact I don't have a car. I go for days without eating because the money we get isn't enough. I wish my son's father were alive to help us, but, he's not. I can only work a few hours/wk because daycare is unaffordable and I don't have anyone else to help me care for my son. How dare you judge people when you have no idea what it's like to walk in their holey broken shoes? You don't know our stories or how we ended up where we are.

My computer was a Christmas gift from my parents (you know, those people who made me...or did you think we were all orphans too?) because I needed one for school and my internet is free WiFi that's included in my rent. Any other questions?

Thanks for you kindness, Silver. I am not as eloquent as you so I aim to be brief.While I am wondering why her parents didn't buy her shoes, I am also wondering many other things. I'm sure you are too.

Because they can't afford to take care of me and my son. Just so you're aware, THEIR tax dollars help take care of me and my son, not yours. My husband died fighting for your right to talk nonsense and question others' spending habits and I find it unbelievable that you're disrespectful enough to kick me when I'm down instead of offering me kind word of encouragement to get my life back on track. That's just pathetic. I've tried to find work that would help me schedule around the care of my son. I've turned in 342 job applications in less than 6 months, with no success. I can't leave my son home alone to go to work. It's neglectful and against the law. You can judge me all you want. Just remember, my husband died for you to do so.

The Founding Fathers and those who fought in the Continental Army were our original Western Heroes, guided by the thinkers of the Enlightenment and following in the footsteps of great warriors like Jan Sobieski and Charles Martel.